Replies

"...but the stupid a$$es who stayed home on Tuesday most likely never bothered to vote in their state primaries..."

Too true. The problem is, as I read and weigh the opinions posted here, that I am still hearing a losing theme.

The idea seems to be, even after we got smacked by accepting it, once again, that we cannot nominate anyone who isn't already popular.

And how do we determine who is popular?

Why... the Mainstream media tells us, of course, that's how.

In the next two years we need to kick this habit- this acquiescence to the "authority" and control of our politics by the New York Times.

We say we need to nominate a true conservative. But then we immediately surrender, and meekly accept that we aren't "allowed" to sift through all of our politicos, and realize just which one consistently votes conservatively.

Take Obama. The Left decided to elevate him, and puts him in a position to address the Democratic party. The media then gushes as to how his was the greatest speech since the Gettysburg Address. It was just that easy to dictate that he is now to be popular, according to Sulzberger and his media acolytes.

What We Need To Do... is to throw off all of those constraints that say the only free choice we can make as conservatives is to accept exactly what the New York Times bloody well tells us to accept.

Don't accept that we can't nominate a true conservative like Senator Sessions.

If we evaluate him and decide that there is a better, stronger conservative candidate, that's one thing. And such may be the case.

But let's list what strengths and weaknesses he has from his record, (which is difficult to hide from), and contrast them to the strengths and weaknesses of several other possibles, and their records.

Demonstrate to us that he isn't the best choice, and we'll accept that. (With supporting proof, of course.)

But please don't tell me that we aren't "allowed" to nominate and then build up a real conservative. We have two years to do our homework. The Obama coronation took them no more than an afternoon's machinations.

Here in Ohio, in the primaries, it was gravely explained that we couldn't nominate a stauncher conservative to replace Mike DeWine, because... "Only DeWine can win easily..." And two-thirds of Ohio Republicans accepted that. Now the same sages will offer us the same wisdom, over the next two years, in regards to 2008.

How many times do we need to get our heads beaten into the concrete before we decide what kind of a candidate we want...

...and who we will let prohibit him, on the basis that he isn't loved as much as McCain by Helen Thomas?

What... will it take? How many more losses can we afford? How much more damage do we subject the country to... before we say that:

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary to sever our ties to a political system which rigs the game against us before we even start..."

Don't focus too narrowly on just the candidate for POTUS.

We need to look at new leadership for:

*RNC Chairman
Melhman is stepping down. How much of a say we can have in this I have no clue but names being put out on this board that I can recall are:

{Steele}
He has Chairman experience in Maryland

{Gingrich}
There is no question he knows how to focus on a message to the People and then get a gang together to push that across.

*Congressional Leaders
The Majority leaders are Nov 7th. Now is the time for putting leaders in place who can prime the pumps for the conservative message to the People in 2008.

They must combat Bush's bipartisan tendancies to push through liberal agendas like the Immigration bill. We can all argue how to handle illegal aliens but we must have true Border Security first. IMHO any bill that solely focuses on the southern border without addressing the terrorist friendly government north of us is a joke!

60% + Americans want something done about the borders. The glaring contradiction of Open Borders during a time of war is inanity and the voters aren't going to listen to a pro-WOT party who neglects Homeland Security.

|||HILLARY IS ALREADY PLAYING THE ABOVE CARD IN HER DECK|||
We must NOT allow her to position herself to the right of us. That is what happened with many candidates this time around and it worked. <_<

Some names being thrown around are:

{Pence}
{Shadegg}

These are people who are known to be going for the position. I've only heard good things thus far but we most definitly need to keep our ears open on other names and our minds open as to which ones would be best.

*Candidates for POTUS
I don't disagree that we need to start drafting conservatives right now but the two above cannot be forgotten or we'll end up with a captian facing mutiny.

Not all of these people have put their feelers out for a run. These are names I've heard thrown out here and I have of course been one of the ones doing the name tossing. XD
__________________________________________________________
YOU WILL NOT HEAR THE MSM TOUTING THESE NAMES ON A REGULAR BASIS like Guilliani & McCain.
__________________________________________________________

Executives
{Sanford} =P
http://www.petitiononline.com/msan2008/petition.html

{Romney}
People here have been debating him. Let's continue the debate.

{Barbour}
Sorry folks you all are gonna have to build up something about him cause I know nothing. Just a name I've been hearing.

Legislatures
{Sessions}
I don't know anything. XD

{Hunter}
I don't know anything again. XD

{Santorum} ^_^
Well at least he was top 3rd in the Senate. T^T He's my homestate guy and I'd like to see him make a run just cause he's that good! He will keep the debates lively there is no question about that. Maybe we could haul up Boxer for him to yell at just for fun. I like to think of him as our future VP.

Now we need a Platform. We need a top 3 list that those potential leaders can tout that we want to be the message of the GOP.

ANYBODY else besides me notice the lack of a uniform message in the campaigns for 2006?

Swing voters aren't gonna vote for you if you don't give them a reason to! They are people who don't know what they believe but if you believe in something and give them something to believe in then I believe they will vote for us. LOL

My suggestions for the top 3!

{War on Terror}
Some party has to be the pro-WOT party and we know it's not the other guys.

{Border Security}
You can't tout the top one and ignore this. However it's too large an issue to be lumped with the WOT.

{Budget}
We need to renew the Bush tax cuts in 2010. Who better to do that than the GOP.
We need to cut spending, especially of the Porky Pig variety.
Possibly change rules to how spending is tagged onto National Security bills? I don't know how the rules work so...
Someone said a Balanced Budget Amendment though I'm leary of trying to promote Amendments cause of the tendency of that sort of thing to not ever actually happen. -_-

THOSE ARE MY TOP 3!

They are the primary platform. Of course there is the other party platform issues but in order to keep the message to the People simple so we can POUND! POUND!! POUND!!! it home we should not allow the other issues to overshadow in speeches. Of course they are just as important in policy but not as important in repeating incessantly till every lib journalist is puking in the streets.

Sorry about all that now it's time for me to post this albatross before I add anymore. o_0